13.12.12

I finished reading the parasha for this week, and felt compelled to write a short entry about it. This parasha, "miketz", is probably one of my most favorite portions to read. Every year when I read it strikes more for its simplicity, yet complexity in regard to the several story lines, such as Yosef's relationship with his brothers. I'm affected every time I read about Yosef crying, and I myself want to cry for the overwhelming emotions involved. As I read the parasha, I am hooked as if reading a modern thriller, wanting to read more and more, as if I have not read it dozens of times already!

I could write a whole essay on the beauty of this story, the lessons we can learn about human nature. Before our very eyes we see the maturity of Yosef, who began as a little spoiled and perhaps even bratty, to a strong, humble man in control over a vast kingdom. He never sought revenge on those who harmed him, and even forgave his brothers, who sought to kill him, but were "satisfied" to only sell him into slavery. We also get to see the change in his brothers, which is no less remarkable.

One note about the style of the Biblical narrative. I noticed during this reading that Yehuda tells his father that they told about Binyamin (ch. 43, v. 7) because the ruler (Yosef) asked if they had another brother. Odd enough in the account that is given to us in chapter 42 it seems as if they volunteer the information to Yosef. First of all, it is possible that Yehuda was lying to Ya'akov to cover themselves- a very feasible answer. Nonetheless, I think it gives a witness to the unique style in these stories, which do not claim to be giving a full, detailed account. There's a brevity in the narration, which leaves us wanting for more a times, but also allows us to imagine and fill in possibilities for ourselves. I am sure that the complexity in the human interactions was no different than those today, as we know there is nothing new under the sun.

I may have finished reading the parasha for this year, but I'm excited about reading it again next year!

29.9.12

The following are excerpts from the first issue of a journal published in 1910 in Johannesburg, entitled The Messianic Jew. The authors (5 Jewish, 2 Gentile) laid out a program for living with Jewish identity, lifestyle, and purpose within the community of Israel, as opposed to assimilation into the Gentile Christian world. Their ideas were judged "heretical" and roundly condemned by other contemporary "Hebrew Christians." (For part of that story, see Messianic Judaism vs. Hebrew Christianity in 1917.)

Has anything much changed since then, except that Hebrew Christians -- after viciously maligning and condemning Messianic Jews for a century -- now call themselves "Messianic Jews"?

---

It is truly deplorable that Jewish Christians, who should constitute the "True Israel of God," have allowed themselves to become detached from their own people and have, by complacently accommodating themselves within the sphere of Gentile Christendom, neglected and ignored the very things which should have been most precious to them. [p. 1]

Criticising others is always a delicate matter, and especially will this be an unpleasant task when those concerned may bear honoured names, but things have reached a stage when, we feel, true and good service can only be rendered by speaking the unvarnished truth, no matter how unpalatable it may be. [p. 2]

That is to say, we Gentiles are the "proselytes," if any there be, while those of Israel are the original heirs. Thus Gentile pride has completely overturned the Divine order, and has perverted the Hebrew Christian's consciousness from the very start. And Hebrew Christians have submitted, and are still submitting, to this perversion. Incalculable harm has thus been done.... The error being fundamental, the whole superstructure is hopelessly out of line. This grievous wrong on the part of Gentile Christianity needs confession and, as far as possible, correction and redress. [p. 4]

You owe this testimony to your nation.... Follow Paul's example. It is sound and safe.... His final testimony to the elders of the Synagogue at Rome was: "Men and brethren, I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers." (Acts 26:17). Would to God that every Hebrew Christian could speak thus. [p. 7]

I cannot help but feel that only a Jewish Christianity which does not seek to deck itself with foreign plumage, but takes its nourishment from the depths of Jewish national life and custom and awakens Jewish memories and hopes, only such a Christianity is capable of transforming the Jewish people from being the greatest opponents of the Gospel, into the greatest messengers of God's saving grace to mankind. But alas! the attitude of most Hebrew Christians upon this question is one of carelessness and, in some instances, of hostility. Permit me further to emphasise the fact that to millions of good and orthodox Jews, Hebrew Christianity as it stands to-day does not convey the idea of a thorough moral change, but rather the idea of the abandonment of Jewish distinctiveness and a general contempt for all that is dear to the Jewish heart. [pp. 8-9]

Allow me to say that I fully endorse what may be termed the "Minimum-programme"...: That Hebrew Christians should observe Circumcision, the Sabbath, the Jewish Festivals, and that every effort should be made to revive the Hebrew language.... We should show to our unconverted brethren that we are not "Meshumadim" (renegades [or converts]), but, on the contrary, genuine, patriotic Jews, true sons and daughters of Israel. [p. 9]

...by way of a Manifesto...: (1) That the policy of complete assimilation, which Hebrew Christians are now pursuing, is having an injurious effect upon themselves, their children and their people. It has become one of the greatest obstacles in the way of Jews seriously considering the true claim of Jesus as Israel's Messiah.... (4) ...our children will grow up with a living consciousness that ours is Messianic (Biblical) Judaism, in contradistinction to Rabinnic.... [p. 11]

As long as the Grecian calendar was in vogue, agreeing as it does to a great extent with the Jewish calendar, the Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus, as well as the rest of the Jewish people, celebrated the Feast of Chanucah at one and the same time. As, however, the church became more and more Gentilised, until the Gentile branch dominated the Jewish root from whence it had sprung, culminating in the adoption of the solar calendar as opposed to the lunar calendar of the Jews, not only was the month changed, but the origin of Christmas was almost entirely lost sight of. [p. 16]

Apart from the fact that anything which tends to efface the distinctiveness of the Jew must be directly contrary to God's will, it will be apparent that a Gospel which couples with itself denationalisation and absorption, must be distasteful and meet with violent opposition.... The Japanese are a patriotic and loyal people.... How would such a message as this be received, and how many Japanese would accept Jesus under such conditions? And the heritage of the Japanese is not the heritage of the Jew, who looks back upon a past with which God Himself is intimately bound up, and who can look into a future such as can no other nation, and if the Japanese looks askance upon a teaching which would stifle every national feeling, how much more the Jew? And what is the remedy? The answer is not far to seek. Jesus must be stripped of the "Gentile" garb which the Jew sees around Him, and must be revealed in His true form, as an Israelite, as one who, in the truest sense, was a Hebrew, as one who came not to destroy, not to change, not to "Gentilise," but to fulfil. And Jesus cannot be stripped of His "Gentile" garb and stand revealed to the Jew as a Jew until the believing Israelite himself comes to a true understanding of his position, and until the attitude of the Gentile Christian world toward the believing Jew is also altered. [p. 19]

[Biblical] Jewish customs and institutions can never be put down as idolatrous and sinful. They were instituted by God Himself, and were ordained as part of His Divine service. [p. 22]

2.8.12

Bring all the tenth to the treasure house and let there be a portion in my house. And do test me in this, says YHVH of hosts, if I shall not open to you+ the skies, and I shall empty to you+ blessing until no stop—Mal'achi 3:10

And then the baskets are passed around. Or a member of the congregation, having been delegated the task of a brief explanation for this part of the weekend service, explains that God wants us to give him one tenth of our incomes to support "the work of the Lord". Or the pastor sermonizes on the symbolism of the tithe—that in fact all of our money belongs to God; this tax-free, relinquished fraction is symbolic of the whole.

Let us acknowledge that countless Christian and MJ church-goers give a tenth—surely sometimes even more—of their earnings out of deep adoration of the God of heaven and earth. And they do so sacrificially, believing that our God notices each of us and will provide. In so doing they express their reliance on God and not on their finances. Perhaps many think of Markos' report of how Yeshua spoke well of a widow for donating to the temple's treasure house "out of her poverty, [giving] all that she had to live on." I am confident that God sees what such folks do and is very pleased with those individuals because of their motivation to give and the trust they display by their action.

Ecclesiastic theology connects this traditional Christian practice of handing-in a tithe to a church directly to the standard tithe mandated for 'Am Yisra'el. But from my personal bible study, this teaching is erroneously based on the biblical tithe both from a hermeneutical and practical standpoint. To be clear: this post isn't a judgment of the tithe-er, but rather a criticism of the widespread theology that determines the output of folks' readiness to offer up to God what the world generally considers livelihood. (Though of course I want to encourage folks to keep God's commands even if that means changing even well-intentioned current practice.) Moshe gave Yisra'el an altogether different description of the tithe, both in purpose and practice. I here embark on a worthy topic not only because of the direct consequences and benefits of refining our understanding of God's commands, but also because doing so opens us up to an honest way of thinking about what a physical church or messianic congregation (including their services) is: a club house. Even more, this topic gives us an opportunity to re-examine the apparent normalcy of the modern structure of our societies in terms of how we relate to the poor.

12.7.12

KosherVitamins.com is offering "Easy Fast" pills to aid people on Yom Kippur. Now, some of these are specifically for pregnant and nursing women, who perhaps should not be fasting anyway [one relevant discussion can be found at A Mother in Israel]. But there are also pills for everyone that are designed to "curb appetite" and "control thirst." Does this make sense? Should one even want or wish others an "easy" fast? Isn't the whole point of fasting that it can be one way of humbling or afflicting the soul (תְּעַנּוּ אֶת־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם, וְעִנִּיתֶם אֶת־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם, Lev. 16:29 & 16:31, Num. 29:7)?

On a related note, is the rabbinic prohibition of bathing and oils contradicted by Matt. 6:16-18 ("when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face")?

3.7.12

Recently I received two pieces of writing on the topic of which foods are permissible for Jews to eat. One author, calling himself a Messianic Jew, argued that we can eat "anything" and that it would be wrong to make any restrictive rules, since this is what "Paul's writings" say. The other, an Orthodox Jew, discussed the intricacies of different (contradictory) rulings concerning whether one is allowed to eat a certain kind of vegetable if there is a possibility that a Gentile might have touched it at some point. He concluded that in some cases it is ok.

Right now I don't want to get into all the reasons why each of these "authoritative" and widely accepted opinions is (in my own humble opinion, of course) wrong, unbiblical, illogical, and offensive. I hear these two kinds of opinions over and over and over from these two camps, and I simply don't have the energy to keep responding to them every time. I just want to point out that we desperately need a different way. A true way. A way that is based on what Torah actually says -- about food and everything else in life.

Now, apparently, only hydroponic lettuce is "kosher" (because, of course, that's what Moshe and those guys ate way back when). Some Jerusalem restaurants are revolting against the ignorant and oppressive kashrut commissars.

23.6.12

Dietrich Bonhoeffer is justly honored as a remarkable and rare anti-Nazi Christian. As can be read elsewhere, he not only stood against Hitler's evil genocide and euthanasia programs, but he also took firm and decisive action to combat them. In 1933 and 1939 Bonhoeffer left Germany on various trips and could have remained abroad. But his conscience bothered him for having left at all at a time of terror in his nation. He decided he must be at home to make the terrible choices that had to be made, and to be an example to others of how to act when their nation had gone utterly mad and was seeking to "destroy civilization." Rather than save himself, he considered it a "privilege and honor" to suffer with the Jewish "brothers of Jesus Christ." He was murdered by the Nazis in 1945.

I am not a big fan of the term "martyr," for obvious reasons; but if anyone truly deserved that title in the good sense of the word, Bonhoeffer did.

Recently I came across this quotation from one of his many writings. It pertains to Christian community, but could be applicable to other types of community as well:

"The measure with which God gives the gift of visible community is varied. Christians who live dispersed from one another are comforted by a brief visit of another Christian, a prayer together, and another Christian's blessing. Indeed, they are strengthened by letters written by the hand of other Christians. Paul's greetings in his letters written in his own hand were no doubt tokens of such community. Others are given the gift on Sundays of the community of the worship service. Still others have the privilege of living a Christian life in the community of their families."

I noticed this because it stands in striking contrast to the opinions of some we know, who regard official congregational governmental structures as the only legitimate form of community.

It also stands in contrast, in general, to most religious people's obsession with imposing uniformity. This is manifest in rabbinic Judaism, in Messianic Judaism, in Christianity, and in other religions. It is something I have never been able to understand. If you say you believe in a God who created the universe, why not take a look around you and see what he created?! One of the most obvious and striking features of Creation is an incredible diversity and beauty of variety. So please don't tell me that God wants everyone to be exactly the same and to fit into your little narrow religious definition of how everybody is supposed to look and act!

In my opinion, nothing in the Bible justifies that view. The Bible does of course have rules for how to behave, but within that framework there is enormous room for individual freedom and variety in how to live. (See also this and that previous post.) I would go further and say that it is every person's responsibility before God to be an individual. Actually, it's fascism (not God) that tries to justify the imposition of uniformity.

27.5.12

This entry is a response to Shmuley Boteach's opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post, “No Holds Barred: Non-Jews as the saviors of Judaism”, which was previously posted on this blog here. To read Shmuley's full article click here.

One of my many concerns with rabbinic Judaism is its exclusive focus on the Jewish people. Perhaps that makes sense as a religion of the Jewish people, but unfortunately God's calling was not to create our exclusive religion. His desire for us as a people was much greater (and fulfilling)- bless the whole world! (see Genesis 12:3)
God said through the prophet Isaiah, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nations so that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (Isaiah 49:6, emphasis mine). God is clearly speaking to an individual, “My Servant”, who I believe is the Messiah, but I also think Israel has a part in being this light. God chose Israel, and from Israel the Messiah, for a very specific purpose- bring salvation to the whole world!

That said, I'd like to turn to Shmuley's article. While he seems to present an open and welcoming stance toward the nations, ultimately it's quite self-focused. He writes, “Having non-Jews become excited about Judaism is the most effective way to address assimilation, because Jews would now be blending into a culture that embraces and honors their tradition.” Shmuley expresses more concern here with preserving this exclusive religion than fulfilling God's purpose for us.

Shmuley presents a “seven-step program” to implement his plan. Here it is:

" 1. Observe Friday night as family night (see www.fridayisfamily.com) by tuning out all electronic interference and focusing on children, friends and community.

2. Eat kosher food (20 percent of Americans already look for kosher symbols for cleanliness and purity) and separate milk from meat as a symbol of the affirmation of life and its negation from all forms of corrosion and death.

3. Celebrate the themes of the Jewish festivals. Passover Seders, emphasizing the human capacity to rise above material enslavement (President Barack Obama already hosts his own annual Seder), transcending a reliance on material comforts by returning to the essentials of nature on Succot, lighting lamps on Hanukka as a symbol of the human capacity to illuminate a dark earth and heal a painful life, and reorienting ourselves to the essential laws of ethics and morality on Shavuot.

4. Studying Judaism’s great texts, from the Torah portion of the week to selections of the Talmud, to the epistles of Maimonides, to kabbalistic and hassidic works.

6. Appreciation of, and respect for, the feminine, including codes of alluring modesty for women, and domesticity and marital commitment for men, all necessary in an age where teens like Miley Cyrus are already pole-dancing and stars like George Clooney can’t commit.

7. A commitment to acts of communal kindness, such as regular visits to hospitals and homes for the elderly and giving 10 percent of one’s income to charity. "

These points could be viewed as Shmuley's version of the 7 Noahide Laws, but they are much more dubious. Shmuley explicitly states that he is not interested in converting non-Jews, yet if you read his list it looks awfully close to conversion!

Separating milk and meat!?! This is supposed to be some great Jewish principle? I don't quite understand how this is a “symbol of the affirmation of life and its negation from all forms of corrosion and death”.

I agree with the idea of spreading Biblical (Jewish) values. Number 7 is a point I can support. If you read the rest of the points, however, you quickly notice that “Biblical” is not an issue all. For example, he cites Madonna, in another part of the article, as an example because she dabbles in a popular form of kabbalah. This is supposed to be a positive example for us? My opinion on kabbalah is material for a separate entry, but I will say that study of kabbalah seems to have near to nothing to done with God or the Tanakh.

Speaking of God, by the way, where does He appear in this seven-step program? He does not even make a cameo appearance!! This “incidental” omission of God is an unfortunate tendency in some (or many) forms of rabbinic Judaism. They may promote Jewish values and keeping kosher, but what about loving God? Why is this not number one on the list?

Shmuley bluntly states, “Judaism has failed”. He mentions high rates of assimilation and the poor image Israel has in the world. I agree with him, there is a problem. Rabbinic Judaism has failed to provide the solution. I'm sorry, Shmuley, but your solution is no better, if not worse. The only solution is to return to GOD, not Jewish values based on traditions of men, and embrace our calling as a light to the nations. We, as Israel, must obey God and His commandments. God has given us a choice: life or death (see Deuteronomy 30). Let us chose the path of life! God has even promised us His Spirit to enable us to follow His decrees (Ezekiel 36:27). Only then can we go to the corners of the earth and teach the nations the greatness of our God!

26.5.12

Recently I have been struck more and more by the extent to which rabbinic Judaism, while loudly claiming to uphold and promote Torah, actually denies and violates Torah.

A good example is the practice of kosher hotels in Jerusalem providing holiday meals to thousands of observant Jews every Pesakh, Shavuot, Rosh haShana, etc. To do so they must press into service an army of employees, both Jewish and Gentile. This is absolutely and unequivocally forbidden by Torah, which makes it clear that both the Israeli and the foreigner in the land are to rest and not work on shabbat (Exodus 23:12; Deuteronomy 5:14). Yet the practice is not only condoned by rabbinic Judaism, but actually nurtured and encouraged.

In talking with orthodox rabbinic Jews, it often becomes clear that the reason they do not follow Torah (despite claiming to) is because they do not believe Torah (despite claiming to). Over the centuries, rabbinic Judaism has invented all sorts of ways to make the text seem to mean just about anything except what it actually says! This applies to the shmita, the seventh-year rest of the land from agriculture; it applies to the claim that Re'uven did not really sleep with Bilhah, his father's concubine, though Genesis 35:22 says explicitly that he did; and it applies of course to numerous other scriptures.

Rabbinic Judaism does follow an observance that is in some way derived from or based on Torah. But there is always a twist, which usually distorts the actual mitzvot. One non-Jew who came to live in Jerusalem for a while noted that rabbinic Judaism seems to consist mainly of making up lots and lots of new rules that God never commanded, and then finding ways to get around the ones He did command! That's not a bad summary, sadly.

This system creates not only an entirely different view of Torah (than what results from simply reading the text), but also, therefore, a very different view of God, of life, of one's self, of one's community, of one's obligations and goals, and so forth. Despite all claims to the contrary, the lifestyle and mindset of rabbinic Judaism are often very far removed from those of Torah. It makes a difference whether one believes that the fathers sinned -- seriously and frequently -- or whether one instead insists, in blatant denial of what is recorded, that they were completely righteous and flawless. It makes a difference whether one believes that the foreigner in Israel should rest on shabbat or that we should set aside this clear commandment for the sake of our own convenience and pleasure.

The list of examples could go on and on. One topic that is often mentioned is the ridiculous and discriminatory insistence on matrilineal descent in defining Jewishness, despite universal acknowledgment that Torah operates primarily (if not exclusively) according to patrilineal descent. Or the intentional avoidance of work and army service by many ultra-orthodox Jews. There is ample evidence to prove that rabbinic Judaism -- while chanting Torah! Torah! Torah! -- has actually been fighting against the plain sense of the Torah for about 2,000 years. And this destruction of Torah is usually supported by the most nonsensical reasoning, which a child could see through but adults refuse to question. (I know that "nonsensical reasoning" is an oxymoron; but how else is one to describe the convoluted rationalizations?)

I am here to say that there are some of us Jews who actually want to follow Torah! Because the Torah, the teaching, of God gives life. It is what will give true life to our nation, and to the foreigners in our midst, and to the world. (See Leviticus 18:5; Ezekiel 20:11, 20:13; Nehemiah 9:29; etc.) It is what can give the dati (religious) and the khiloni (secular) fruitful and peaceful life. But the latter needs to set aside his aversion to God's ways. And the former needs to set aside his aversion to God's ways.

Currently rabbinic Judaism is far ahead of Torah in the minds and hearts of Israel. Can we change that? Please?

“I didn’t say ‘heaven and earth’ but ‘the world,’” Ahuvia said,
“because on the second day he created the firmament and called it
heaven. In the Bible, the phrase ha-shamayim ve-ha’aretz means ‘the world.’”

Drora Halevy, national supervisor of Bible studies at the Ministry of
Education, claims: “This translation cuts out the heart of the Bible.
It reduces the Bible to just another book. In the Bible, form and
content are bound together. The translation kills it."

27.2.12

I agree with Viola that God's esteem of Woman is very high. But in the process of trying to show us that, he makes some pretty erroneous remarks--some of which I consider demonstrative of how many Christians today, and sadly most of those with publicity, continue to misuse the biblical texts and misrepresent not only the nation of Israel but also God himself.

"Let’s take a trip back to ancient Israel and look at how women were viewed before Jesus came. The Jews had a very dim view of women. Jewish women were not allowed to receive an education. Hence, they were largely uneducated. Their only training was in how to raise children and keep house."

Viola is severely oversimplifying. For one thing, "ancient Israel" could span 2000 years, i.e. up to 500 CE, so he's being very vague. Regarding the central topic of Viola's sermon, here is an explicit example of when in Jewish (=Israelite) history women received an education alongside men: after Israel returned from exile in Babylon and rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem (around 516 BCE)--the same one in which Jesus (or "Yeshua" in Hebrew, which was his actual name) was dedicated, spoke, turned over tables, etc--"Ezra the priest brought the Tora before the congregation both of men and women, and all those who could hear with understanding [....] And he read therein [...] from morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those who could understand" (Nehemiah 7). You see, the teachings God spoke to my ancestors (i.e. the Tora) addressed both men and women. Both were treated as relevant, in the desert as well as during the time of the second temple.

Has Viola never read Proverbs 31? Or perhaps he forgot that that was written by an Israelite man with Israelite women in mind. There we read of a woman who conducts business: "she seeks wool, and flax, and works willingly with her hands" (cf. Paul's exhortation: Ephes 4:28), "She considers a field and buys it," "She makes garments and sells them, and delivers girdles to the merchant. Strength and dignity are her clothing," "She opens her mouth with wisdom, and on her tongue is a Tora of steadfast love." "Her children rise up and call her blessed, her husband also and he praises her." And this chapter is framed with longing for such women: "Who can find a woman of worth, for her price is far above rubies." By the way, religious Jewish men all around the world sing this proverb every Friday night to their wives sitting around the table with family and friends, imparting this ideal to the subsequent generations. Jews in the ancient world had a "dim" view of women? "He who finds a wife finds good, and obtains favor from YHVH" (Proverb 18). Seems to me that ancient Israelites did in fact hold a high esteem for women, and they clearly weren't expected to just keep house.

Viola goes on to talk about women's access in the temple compounds. Yes, Gentiles were limited access and Israelite women were, too, to a lesser extent. But I want to note that Israelite men were also limited (less than Israelite women and even less than non-Jews); the priests had access to an area closer to the ark and God's presence. They were also limited, however, as only the high priest could enter the most inner precinct once a year. These limitations, though, had more to do with ritual function and celebration, not with value of the individual. God chooses different people for different things. He chose Israel to establish his government--not the Koreans, not the Romans, not the Chileans. He chose the tribe of Levi as the priests, not Judah, not Mannaseh, not Benjamin. God doesn't give every human being the same role and responsibilities as every other human being. By the way, according to wikipedia, it was in the women's precinct where there was both music and dancing; Israelite men could also be there. Perhaps that's where Khana, a prophetess, was doing her work (Luke 2).

Viola also makes the sadly common mistake of imposing later Pharisaic traditions on not only the Pharisees of the first century but on all Israelites of that time. You must understand that during the second temple period the Pharisees were a sect. They claimed that their interpretation of God's Tora and that their oral traditions were authoritative. But they constituted one of several voices in Jewish society. The average Jew didn't necessarily follow them. So as an example, Viola cites a few blessings found in the Siddur--the Jewish prayer book where, yes, one of the morning prayers is, "Blessed are you, Lord our God, who has not made me a woman." But the Siddur didn't exist in the first century. In the early Medieval period it apparently was coming together and it wasn't distributed widely among Jewish communities until later in the Middle Ages. Yet Viola anachronistically reads the benedictions of this much later rabbinic (inheritors of the Pharisaic) text as commonly prayed by not only Pharisees but apparently the general Jewish populace of the first century. "This was man’s view of a woman in first-century Israel," he claims. That's a huge assumption with no evidence backing it.

Note: I own a Siddur though I use it selectively. My edition is edited by England's late chief rabbi. He mentions that that blessing has "nothing to do with hierarchies of dignity, for we believe that every human being is equally formed in the image of God. Rather, they are expressions of acknowledgement of the special duties of Jewish life. […] women are exempt from certain commands which apply to Jewish men." There you have a modern, orthodox (i.e. late-Pharisaic) view of the matter.

"It was not much better in other cultures. In fact, ever since the Fall of humanity, women have been regarded as second-class citizens—inferior to men."

He's right about that but in my opinion the revelation preserved by Israel, which has long framed the culture, tells me that in Israelite society, there existed at least a fundamental awe of Woman. Allow me to portray the contrast between one relevant nation and Israel. An ancient Greek poet, Hesiod, tells the story of how men were living just fine until they discovered fire. The gods in response created Woman explicitly as a curse. In my estimation, the advent of Woman related in Genesis is the diametric opposite. After God had founded the earth, the unfathomable depths of the sea, the gigantic burning stars, sunsets, gentle breezes, puppies, tigers, trees and their fruits, man with his creative faculty, wonder, yearning, capacity to care and feel, and every other good thing in the physical world and said it was very good, then God created as his finale: Woman. In the Israelite mind, she is the crowning achievement of all of God's creative work in the first six days.

Viola also pretty much misunderstands several of the examples he quotes in his effort to show just how extra-ordinarily Yeshua related to women:

1. John 8. A woman is brought by Pharisees and scribes and accused of adultery. It says very clearly that they brought her to Yeshua in order to trip him up and have reason to accuse him (probably of breaking God's laws). According to God's commands, a woman who commits adultery is to be killed if there are at least two witnesses. None of the accusers said they witnessed her. Yeshua did not either, and so he could not legally condemn her. A (male) adulterer, by the way, is to receive the same punishment. I just don't think this incident illustrates Yeshua's revolutionary respect for women as he just keeps the Tora and doesn't give into to the pressures of the Pharisees and scribes. The situation with John 4 is similar. Yeshua didn't personally witness with another person the Samaritan woman's adultery. It certainly was shocking to see him hanging out with people like this but that's because people expected a prophet, especially if this was the awaited messiah (i.e. the king-redeemer), to not condescend to such people's level. Indeed that is one of the beautiful things about Yeshua: he came to heal sinners as a doctor heals the sick. As for the surprise his disciples show for his speaking with a Samaritan (and a woman, no less), it very well may have been an issue of modesty. Once upon a time men and women kept a bit of distance in public. Women also covered up, and it's not necessarily out of assigning inferiority to them but rather deep cultural respect and value for a woman's body and reputation.

2. Luke 7. I just don't think the issue was one of sex. The reaction of the Pharisees is shock that he would let such a "sort of woman," i.e. a "sinner," touch him. They show similar surprise toward him dining with male tax collectors.

3. Matthew 15. Viola says that the Canaanite woman was considered a "dog" in Jewish society. I want to point out, first, that Yeshua, not a Pharisee or someone else, is the one who says, "it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." Second, the issue here is that she's Canaanite, not that she's a woman. We were supposed to entirely destroy the Canaanite nations but failed to do so, which is at issue here in Yeshua's treatment of her, I think. Once she acknowledges Israel's legitimacy and his authority over Israel (cf. "son of David" = messiah = king and redeemer of Israel) he heals her daughter.

4. Bride imagery. Again, has Viola not read Hosea? The prophet's marriage to a prostitute is meant to depict God's situation with adulterous Israel. And in anticipation of Israel's restoration, chapter 2 assures us, "I will betroth you to Me forever; Yes, I will betroth you to Me in righteousness and in justice, In lovingkindness and in compassion, And I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness." How about Isaiah 62: to Jerusalem he says, "as a bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you." Or Jeremiah 2: God said, "I remember in your favor, the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride, when you went after me in the wilderness. " Ezekiel 16 features a very thorough depiction of God having taken the nation of Israel as his wife. This imagery preceded Yeshua's arrival by up to hundreds of years. It wouldn't have surprised nor shamed Yeshua's disciples, neither men nor women, to have heard such imagery.

It just irks me that a man that claims to represent God and enjoy a wide readership, no doubt, teaches so fallaciously. I'm tired of these simplistic caricatures of not just the Pharisees, of whose tradition I'm not at all a fan, but also of Israel and even of, specifically, Yeshua. This kind of inaccurate and simplisic teaching is what historically has led to antisemitism and the further de-Judaising of Yeshua, who is first of all the king of Israel (cf. the plaque on his death stake). Aside from making chauvinistic Chileans uncomfortable, Viola may have also fed the old Christian doctrine of "the church of God vs. the synagogue of Satan." And if that wasn't bad enough, I don't imagine that his original Chilean audience (and now all of us who read his post) come away with very good feelings about the Jewish nation.

Having said a lot, I would love to know what any of you have to say in response to my points.